Skip to main content
9:00 pm
to the height of the roof, represented different data than your drawings now. >> correct. >> was there a survey done? >> there was. the, as you can see in the notification, the previously there were notifications the ground level actually shows like a straight line as well, when it actually isn't. so, in order to compile a new set of drawings, the architect actually had to go to the neighboring property to measure and they allowed us to measure their backyard and grading and previous to that information, we didn't have basically would not have had that information unless we had done that previously. so, i don't know if it was an oversight or what it was is it was not in our attention at all
9:01 pm
to what the appellant is saying that we did on the slide of hand, you know? we did actually follow everything according to the, everything that the requirements that were set out by the building and planning code, we have gone to. >> thank you. >> my question was in a different direction, but that is all right. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. given the lateness of the hour i will try to be as brief as possible. this project does have a long history it was before this board before, and there were revisions of the board had adopted and there was a special condition's permit that was approved and the departments worked with the executive director to insure that the board's conditions were successfully implemented and during the course of that appeal process we did find and i think that it correctly
9:02 pm
pointed out by the appellant inconsistentcy in the addenda and the approval and the things that had changed and we tried our best to catch of the issues and one of the things that we did not recognize at the time that this was not a level lot as depicted on the plans this is a laterally sloping lot and so the project was constructed and the appellant pointed out to the department that the building was higher than was being shown on the plans. so we promptly suspended the building permit and reviewed the matter and found that it was a combination of the laterally sloping lot and plus the misrepresentation of the adjacent property and that is why we got to the number that we did. but that being said, the building was actually being built according to plans, it was the correct height. so the over all height of the structure we had the building
9:03 pm
department measure this several time it was correct it was the representation and the relationship to the adjacent properties. so i made a decision to do a neighborhood notification on this revision permit to correct the relationship and also more importantly i think that the lateral slope of the lot and the view was filed on that and we had a planning commission hearing and the commission did up hold the project revised and taking into consideration appropriately the context. so just wanted to clarify that the available for any questions. >> could you refresh our memory as to the conditions we imposed? >> i was hoping that you would. >> one was related. >> i am much older than you. >> one was actually related to the height and we actually did specifically call out the height that was on the plans which was an incorrect data. >> yeah.
9:04 pm
>> and i think that we have corrected everything now and these revised plans. >> it appears that was the case. but, if you could also and i'm looking at the orientation of this site verses mr. linn's home. and it appears to me that the site is in a way northwest direction from mr. linn's house. >> if i could put on the overhead, a parcel map that was included this is part of the packet that we gave to the commission and it should be in your materials. so you are correct, it is i would say, west to northwest, it is very much to the west, but very slightly to the north this is just a little bit of the compass area here and the west and corresponding up to be
9:05 pm
on the plans and so the relationship, the appellant's property is here and the subject property is here. so it is located to the west but also slightly to the north. >> and it also is down hill as well. >> it also appears that then the pockets of sunlight to mr. linn's house would occur in the late afternoon and the sun is at a relatively low point with respect to the horizon. >> i would agree, late afternoon and in the summer months and also you are pointing out that the subject property does have no variances granted for us and so they do have a complying rear yard and the appellant also has one and so separating the two properties would be the rear yards, and the co-complying rear yards of the properties and so it is as fairly good
9:06 pm
distance between the building walls of the two buildings. and there is i believe, two complying rear yards. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? nothing. >> is there any public comment? please step forward. >> president hwang how many minutes? >> good evening, my name is mark and i am a neighbor at 15 san lorenzo. i am here to comment on the project and basically say that i am against what they are proposing to do here and this roof line seems to be out of hand with the rest of the roof lines in the road. as far as the code compliant as far as i am concerned there is not much of a rear yard it is somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet and i know that it is an unconforming lot. but we have lived there for
9:07 pm
many, many years and i used to run in that lot as a kid. and we had no problem with the actual project being done, but there is just in the way that it was put forth and the way that it was built and right now it is a bliet because we have young children and animals and there are holes and open fences and things where kids could get in. so i feel like it has been neglected and i feel that this should be scrutinized at this point heavily because of the history. and like i said, i know mr. linn very well and i don't know the type of person that would raise... (inaudible) and i have never seen him up in arms. but when stuff like this happens we have to be diligent and also have to understand when i stand behind his house and i look at that roof line and i know that it is not even depleted, it is below its intended height, there is a lot of (inaudible) and light and air lost for him.
9:08 pm
i think that this needs to be reviewed and i would suggest strongly that we consider the original height which was oddly enough incorrect, way off. and just to try to compromise here and get the project done because it is a bliet in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> i just wanted to mention that i don't remember receiving a 311 notification for the revision on the new established roof height. i know that is probably not really an issue at this point. but, it just seems like everything around the project seems to be a little strange. thank you. >> thank you, any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none we will start with rebuttal. mr. linn, you have three minutes. >> keep this pretty short. i don't have a lot of rebuttal
9:09 pm
to say, i pretty much covered everything. as far as flat roofs in the neighborhood i don't have photographic evidence but there are many. i drove around saint francis woods because this may come up with the board. there is probably around 20 in our neighborhood. and only 5 that have flat roofs and they get up peeked a lill bit and then flat and from the street this appear to be peaked. >> the trees from the aerial shot you cannot get height out of that. we have never really had anything blocking or anything like that. and this is a photograph, this is a photograph from the other board showing, showing this house and now if you look at 1337's roof it is not steeply
9:10 pm
peaked. this is on a temporary frame just to hold up the tarp. this roof will be taller than what is depicted here with the blue tarp. and that is the shot that i was showing that shows the pacific ocean in the background. clearly this is west of me. that is all. >> mr. linn, you are saying that the house behind the blue tarp is yours? >> no. just taken from... >> from your house? >> i see. >> it is confusing, saint fra* francis would law the lines around and there are very few straight lines. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal? >> i am just here today just in
9:11 pm
hopes to bring a close to this issue because it has been ongoing for several years. you know, working with the city departments personally, i live in southern california, and so, i drove up here this morning and i know that it is late for us all. but i really do want to comply and our family does want to comply with everything that the city requires of us. and i know that there are other neighbors that were not able to make it today. but i do want to see this project finished and the sooner the better because at this time, as you can see, we were not able to continue building because of the suspension of the permit. so the project as is, leaves it open to vandalism and you know, issues that we just want to resolve at this time and i mean, we actually sent 311 notification to the radius, and
9:12 pm
if there is a issue as to why a neighboring property did not receive the notification i am not able to answer that. for almost an year since they issued the complaint we did send the 311 notifications and we have complied with all of the other requests from dbi and the planning commission. and we went through the process of the discretionary review. and we are here today, we waited several months to be heard, so, my parents, you know, they bought this property with their life savings and i know that we have all... people at all and throughout this year, we have been paying, heavy, heavy interest and basically dipped into, you know, (inaudible) the circumstance that here today that i hope that you can sympathize with and we just really want to bring the close to this situation once and for all. so, if there is, you know, any protocol, if there is any
9:13 pm
questions, you know, if there is anything that i can do at this point to resolve this issue we would really like to do that today. thank you. >> hold on i have a question. >> yes. >> have you guys had an open dialogue with the appellant at this point and how many times have you guys met trying to resolve this? >> actually, i met peter i actually personally went to his house when i believe that when i was in college. so like maybe 8 or 9 years ago. >> you have not had any recent. when the project started to being built after that initial meeting he also would actually continue to call, because he would, i don't know if he would go on to the property himself
9:14 pm
or to determine where the line is. where in the instance where we did meet and he came out and tom, i forget his last name but he is a building inspect or and he basically came out and he had to complain about some sort of dispreptcy with a line and he was arguing over something like an inch. so i think that basically i mean, showed me that, no matter what type of a process or what possessions that we have made and what notifications and no matter what we did to work with the building department and the appellant would he have been or would he have stopped. i don't know if this is just a gradual animosity throughout the years. >> i don't think that we need to go too much further in this direction. if there was a way to do anything with the appellant, as far as working together and coming to a compromise, it
9:15 pm
would have been back then when, you know, trying to get a compromise to get to this hearing today. >> is your family planning, is this going to be your residence? >> yes. >> this is actually my parents dream home. i lived in saint francis and i was named after san francisco and to live in saint francis woods and it has actually become a little bit of a nightmare. >> thank you. >> and any departmental rebuttal? >> no. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well commissioners, you know that this is probably i think that the fourth or fifth hearing on this case. some of you have not seen it, but the, and there were in the original documentation quite a bit of discreptcies. i thought that we had resolved most of them. i have been aware that the
9:16 pm
height was off by that much and you showed me how originally the house was larger. the department has accepted the change, the permit holder was forced to go through a revision and therefore open a way for the additional appeals. and the department, however, is satisfied that they have now done it accurately as far as what the height of the building was that was being constructed and i am prepared to accept that. >> and i move to up hold the permit that it conforms with the permits that in terms of the over all building plan.
9:17 pm
>> on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans, as it relates to the building height? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> we have a motion then. and commissioner fung. to up hold this permit on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans as it relates to the building height. >> yes. >> on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> and there is no further business before the board. >> the meeting is adjourned.
9:18 pm
9:19 pm
9:20 pm
>> if you haven't had a chance to see the stadium and the wonderful progress so far. it's absolutely breathtaking. also as a great symbol of hope on the regionalism that we all hope that we can be engaged for
9:21 pm
event for the future. today we talk about solidarity around the super bowl. there is no greater place to have it here than in this valley. we have the very best weather and we have the very best people and company's to support the event. i know that anyone that comes to santa clara will be excited and everyone will have a wonderful time. between golden gate and silicone valley, we can't be beat. i'm thrilled to have you here today. i would like to turn it to our partner, the mayor of san francisco. >> thank you for bringing us altogether. thank you for your leadership, thank you for your leadership. i'm down here to join the other mayor's and other officials, not just our
9:22 pm
city, but all the city and officials in the peninsula and bay area so we can announce our joint collaborative effort for the super bowl bid. it's an incredible opportunity. i'm glad to see this going as well as it is because it's really a commitment to the economy of the whole region as to this particular project. having said that, the super bowl bid is an incredible thing and the strength of our bid is a collaboration of this whole region. this is how we think we will win this bid. this is not for any one particular city, it's us working together. not only on transportation issues, not only on cites, but all the
9:23 pm
hospitality that we have set. i want to thank all the regionals for working together. we want that super bowl xv very badly. we think we have the greatest opportunity to work for it and not only to win that bid, but to get ourselves in an incredible rotation for other super bowl hosting. we look at this long-term and it's the reasonable approach that will give us the strengths for the nfl to take into consideration. i want to be thankful for all the regions mayor's for joining us and the 49er organization. they brought us together at this time. it's going to be a great thing for san francisco.
9:24 pm
thank you. >> thank you for coming out. this is an amazing site. there are a thousand people working on this project today. those thousand people have come from all over the area for regional benefit. we are along the border from san jose. it stands to benefit wah as well as the region. we have the most important economies in the world. this building, this facility and this team and this team are a regional asset to the economy. to bring the super bowl here would be a regional effort with regional benefits. we are excited about it and happy to participate and looking forward to our hotels, restaurants, facilities for people who are visiting san francisco and santa clara and other cities around the area.
9:25 pm
super bowl 50, i don't care, we'll take either one. we have a great team put together to make that happen. it will take a lot of collaboration and we in san jose as well as san francisco and santa clara are committed to making it happen. [ applause ] so i'm daniel to committee chair, thank you mayor lee, he approached me and said we have to shine a light on san francisco and the entire bay area. the next call were to mayor matthews, mayor read, we also have officials from
9:26 pm
oakland. this is going to take a unified approach. we are up against a very tough competitors and south florida. miami has hosted. they know how to do it, but we are excited to show off our region, the innovation and also the compassion that we have here in this community. my job, my day job is running tipping points from the community and focusing on fighting poverty in the region and every community project that we have approached, are excited that we are not only talking about one game, but we are talking about bringing all the people together and shining a light on our entire region and helping our whole community embrace them. i want to thank jed, mayor matthew and lee forgiving
9:27 pm
me this opportunity to present this. on may 21st we present to the owners in boston and that will be the big day. so this is a great testament to the regions unified vision and i will turn it over to jed. thank you. [ applause ] >> it's a pleasure to the working with so many great people to bring the biggest sporting event in the world in northern california . we are working together and it's going to take a lot of work. we are a little bit different than other folks. we have a community minded process and looking at a long lasting legacy. when you look at what california means and what is northern california, you are talking about the state of ability,
9:28 pm
technology, the cutting edge. we are standing in what is going to be the first certified stadium. we are not sure what the certification is going to be, we hope it's gold. we are not sure until it's up and running, but what we do know is we have enough solar panels to be powered by the sun. that's something that nobody else can say in the world in sporting events. when you talk about bringing the bowl to the bay. we haven't had a super bowl since 1985. we hope to get another super bowl here and have a golden anniversary in the golden state where we had it in los angeles back in years we are going to host. i'm very excited to work with all the
9:29 pm
the host here, mayor reed, everybody in san jose, this is a place where you have police, construction workers, hotels, everything, it's not just from san francisco to san jose, you are talking about from napa and all places from around the world. i hope it's a future for many events to come. we thank you for coming out and hope to bring back the super bowl. thank you. [ applause ]

March 20, 2013 9:00pm-9:30pm PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 6, San Francisco 6, Francis 3, Linn 2, Hwang 2, San Jose 2, Northern California 2, Daniel 1, Lazarus 1, Sanchez 1, Hurtado 1, Fung 1, Napa 1, Appellant 1, Nfl 1, San Lorenzo 1, Lill 1, Honda 1, Francis Woods 1, Reed 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color